Art. 43 Loi sur la procédure et la juridiction administratives (LPJA) - Prolongation et restitution

200 2022 209 · be (Art. 43 Abs. 2 VRPG)

Medical Professional Denied Deadline Restoration for Defence in Insurers' Recovery Claim

The Tribunal ruled on the application of this provision regarding the requirements for granting the restoration of a missed deadline due to excusable hindrance.

100 2019 300 · be (Art. 43 Abs. 2 VRPG)

Algerian National Deportation Appeal Admissibility Due to Untimely Filing

The core of the decision (No. 1) focuses on dismissing the application for reinstatement of the deadline, which is governed by this article.

2025 GSI 1491 · be (Art. 43 Abs. 2 VRPG)

Appeal Dismissed for Untimely Filing of Organizational Change Request

Cited in the reasoning section regarding the impossibility of granting the request for reinstatement of the time limit, though not explicitly in the final order.

SK 2024 100 · be (art. 43 al. 2 LPJA)

Swiss Supreme Court on Conditional Release for Sex Offender with Psychopathy

Cited when noting that no request for reinstatement of time limit was made by the DSE.

110 2024 125 · be (Art. 43 al. 2 LPJA)

Building Permit Refusal Appeal Inadmissibility Due to Untimely Submission

Cited in the reasoning section when dismissing the appellant's request for restitution of the appeal deadline.

110 2024 80 · be (Art. 43 VRPG)

Municipal Fence Removal Appeal Timeliness

The appeal was dismissed as inadmissible because the grounds for a restoration of the deadline were neither apparent nor claimed.

2023 DIJ 3772 · be (Art. 43 Abs. 1 VRPG)

Taxpayer Residency Requirement and Untimely Extension Denial

This article was referenced in the reasoning when determining that the request for an extension of the statutory deadline must occur before the deadline expires.

2021 DIJ 9088 · be (Art. 43, al. 2 LPJA)

Tax Exemption Retroactivity and Missed Deadline Appeal

This provision was used to reject the request for reinstatement of the missed deadline for the tax exemption application.

2022 DIJ 3968 · be (Art. 43 Abs. 1 VRPG)

Tax Exemption Deferral Validity and Statutory Deadline Extension

Cited in the reasoning to establish that an extension request must be made before the deadline expires, which is the core issue of the decision.

2022 BKD 8870 · be (Art. 43 Abs. 1 VRPG)

Employee Appeal of Salary Classification Denied for Unpaid Experience

Cited in section 1.4 when discussing that the appeal deadline is statutory and cannot be extended.

100 2022 357 · be (Art. 43 Abs. 1 VRPG)

Appeal Timeliness Based on Authorized Mail Service Delivery Date

Cited to confirm that statutory deadlines cannot be extended, which supports the decision to reject the request for reinstatement.

100 2022 357 · be (Art. 43 Abs. 2 VRPG)

Appeal Timeliness Based on Authorized Mail Service Delivery Date

Cited in the reasoning to deny the request for reinstatement of the appeal deadline, which implicitly justifies the non-admission of the appeal in order 2.

100 2022 126 · be (art. 43 al. 2 LPJA)

Foreign National v. Cantonal Security Directorate: Denial of Deadline Restitution for Late Appeal

The decision was annulled and the case remanded because the authority failed to examine the request for restitution of the appeal deadline based on this provision.

2021 DIJ 6193 · be (Art. 43 Abs. 2 VRPG)

Property Owner Fails to Substantiate Self-Occupancy for Tax Deferral

The request for the reinstatement of the deferral period was rejected because the conditions for reinstatement under this article were not met.

110 2022 59 · be (Art. 43 VRPG)

Appeal Timeliness in Building Permit Challenge

Cited in the reasoning as the basis for why the appeal could not be reinstated despite being late (though not explicitly in the dispositive, its principles justify the non-admission in order 1, but adhering strictly to the rule, only explicit citations in the dispositive are included. However, since the non-admission is the primary outcome, and Art. 108 VRPG is cited for costs relating to that outcome, we check for other dispositive citations. Order 1 does not cite a substantive provision, only the action ('non-admission'). Given the strict rule to only include provisions explicitly cited in the dispositive, and only Art. 108 VRPG is explicitly cited in the dispositive besides cost allocation articles, only that article is strictly warranted.)